Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nielson v. Patterson, 65 P.3d 911.

40 citing documents.

Lucas v. Crawford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Lucas v. Crawford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“We review issues of law de novo,” ¶ 5 (2003), but “sustain the superior court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous,” ¶ 20 (App. 2021) (as amended).
Schneider v. Schneider Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Schneider v. Schneider Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Heritage v. Weinberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 26 (App. 2011) (noting that upon remand, a trial court normally has the power to determine attorneys' fees questions and express direction in the mandate is not required for the trial court to award fees); ¶ 12 (2003) ("A vacated judgment lacks force or effect and places parties in the position they occupied before entry of the judgment.").
Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sloan v. Farmers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶ 12 (2003) (“A vacated judgment lacks force or effect and places parties in the position they occupied before entry of the judgment.”).
Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Zwar v. Swain Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶8 P.3d 911 (2003) as authority for his argument that Judge Ryan could not rely on Judge Hicks’s findings.
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions 367 P.3d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc. 279 P.3d 1188 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
P. 59(a) (court may vacate judgment and grant new trial on motion of aggrieved party); (order granting new trial vacates original entry of judgment).
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Distinguished CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. v. Maricopa County 244 P.3d 592 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
where no cross-appeal was required because the superior court had entered an order entirely in appellees' favor.
Ezell v. Quon 233 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
LEVERAGED LAND COMPANY, LLC v. Hodges 232 P.3d 756 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Douglas v. Governing Board of Window Rock Consolidated School District No. 8 210 P.3d 1275 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 11 , (“It has long been the rule in Arizona that a valid statute is automatically part of any contract affected by it, even if the statute is not specifically mentioned in the contract.”); see also Holland v. Roeser, 37 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir.1994) (interpreting an offer of judgment as a contract); ¶ 5 , (interpreting the rules of procedure in the same manner as statutes).
Jones v. Weston 212 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
Jones v. Weston 212 P.3d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
("vacated judgment lacks force or effect and places parties in the position they occupied before entry of the judgment").
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re the Jury Selection Process 207 P.3d 779 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 5 , (interpreting the rules of procedure in the same manner as statutes); State ex rel.
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance 189 P.3d 344 Ariz. 2008
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Insurance 189 P.3d 344 Ariz. 2008
This power includes the “authority to interpret rules of procedure.” ¶ 5
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Marriage of Breitbart-Napp v. Napp 163 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Turley v. Ethington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Turley v. Ethington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County 144 P.3d 1254 Ariz. 2006
Falcon Ex Rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County 144 P.3d 1254 Ariz. 2006
Falcon, 212 Ariz. at 148, ¶ 16 , 128 P.3d at 771 ( ¶ 13 , (suggesting that courts should not construe ambiguous rules of civil procedure restrietively)).
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Foster v. Weir Orthodontic Centers of Arizona, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
(applying rules of statutory construction to interpret ambiguous procedural rules).
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Falcon v. Maricopa County 128 P.3d 767 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
See Forino v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp., , (“To discern the legislature’s intent, we may consider the effect and consequences of alternative construction.”); ¶ 5 , (holding rules of procedure interpreted in same manner as statutes).
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
American Pepper Supply Co. v. Federal Insurance 93 P.3d 507 Ariz. 2004
¶ 5, (approving de novo review of legal issues).
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
Shotwell v. Donahoe 85 P.3d 1045 Ariz. 2004
¶ 5, (approving de novo review of legal issues).